Why Doesn’t MA’s Trans Rights Bill Protect Trans People From Public Discrimination?

[Ian David]

Why Doesn’t MA’s Trans Rights Bill Protect Trans People From Public Discrimination?

On Tuesday, a Joint Judiciary Committee in the Massachusetts legislature advanced a six-year-old bill that would include trans people as a “protected class” in the state’s hate crime laws, prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity in jobs, housing, insurance, mortgage loans and credit—that’s good, right?

Well… the bill also shares a big flaw with a similar trans rights measure that died in Maryland just this last April—it doesn’t guarantee trans people the right to recieve proper “public accommodations” in hospitals, bathrooms gyms, restaurants, hotels or public transit.

The bill’s sponsors dropped public accommodation protections to garner Republican support for the bill—because letting trans people use public restroom will endanger daughters and wives, naturally. Jennifer Levi, director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ Transgender Rights Project says that the bill is at least a good start that takes political reality into account while laying the groundwork for public accommodation inclusion later on. But trans blogger Monica Roberts has called the bill an “unjust… civil rights malpractice”:

<snip>

Roberts at least raises one particularly powerful point: if cisgendered Massachusetts politicians wouldn’t accept a civil rights bill that denied them public access to bathrooms, transportation and hospitals, why should trans citizens?

More:
http://www.queerty.com/why-wont-mas-trans-rights-bill-protect-trans-people-from-public-discrimination-20111115/

[MNBrewer]

1. Because incrementalism is the best we can hope for

from our Fierce Advocates.

They're not kings with magic wands, or dictators!!! :sarcasm: